Must I strike the ball first?

[Slab]

Situation is: Ball in red staked hazard, but dry, and comes to rest side by side and touching a stone (roughly golf ball sized)


Even if I could accurately nick just the ball forward or back without touching the stone, other obstacles mean its not an option


Is it within the rules to address and play it a bit like a snooker canon shot i.e address at the back of the stone so I'd hit the stone first which then moves the ball x distance (hopefully back into play)

And does the answer change if ball/stone are not touching?

Thanks

 

[doublebogey7]

Yes

 

[hovis]

you can hit the stone first as long as its on the downswing. is that what you mean?

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Not sure why you would want to but if you are making a stroke at the ball you could hit anything on the downswing. Could be a reed or grass or an acorn ......

Not sure a one shot penalty would be worth the damage to a club though.

 

[Slab]

Cheers guys

Hovis: yes on the downswing
Mike: Yeah I'd considered that on many shots other 'materials' might well get hit before club-face makes contact with the ball. I just wondered about the terminology used in the definitions of a stroke that says "striking at and moving the ball" when I was striking at (a stone) and moving the ball


Re damage, I carry a scrap club when faced with lies likely to damage/score the club and anyway in this case the drop options didn't clear the tree-line for next shot so I wanted an extra few meters

 

[pendodave]

In a bunker you deliberately hit lots of tiny stones to pop the ball up...

 

[Slab]

In a bunker you deliberately hit lots of tiny stones to pop the ball up...

True enough, although a Bunker and a Lateral Water Hazard are defined differently in the rules so just wanted to check on other potential differences

 

[jim8flog]

Tiger Woods is famous for doing this after a ref declare the stone was not a loose impediment because it was partially embedded.

Mind you had I been his caddy at the time I would have told him not to be so stupid, the 'stone' was not small.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Tiger Woods is famous for doing this after a ref declare the stone was not a loose impediment because it was partially embedded.

Mind you had I been his caddy at the time I would have told him not to be so stupid, the 'stone' was not small.

They stopped that afterwards by saying the impediment had to be easily moveable. If ever there was an example of something within the rules not being in the spirit of the rules that was it.

 

[rulefan]

They stopped that afterwards by saying the impediment had to be easily moveable. If ever there was an example of something within the rules not being in the spirit of the rules that was it.

The rule re loose impediments was not changed and makes no reference to it being 'easily moved.

I think you may be confusing it with movable obstructions, which had nothing to do with Woods.

 

[rulefan]

Tiger Woods is famous for doing this after a ref declare the stone was not a loose impediment because it was partially embedded.


The ref did no such thing. Woods was allowed to move it because it was a loose impediment and was not embedded.
A decision dated some 40 years before confirmed his action

 

[Colin L]

Situation is: Ball in red staked hazard, but dry, and comes to rest side by side and touching a stone (roughly golf ball sized)


Even if I could accurately nick just the ball forward or back without touching the stone, other obstacles mean its not an option


Is it within the rules to address and play it a bit like a snooker canon shot i.e address at the back of the stone so I'd hit the stone first which then moves the ball x distance (hopefully back into play)

And does the answer change if ball/stone are not touching?

Thanks

Think of a bunker shot where it is the sand pushed by the club which propels the ball.

 

[rulefan]

True enough, although a Bunker and a Lateral Water Hazard are defined differently in the rules so just wanted to check on other potential differences

The rule that concerns you is about hazards:

Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions

Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard)

 

[jim8flog]

They stopped that afterwards by saying the impediment had to be easily moveable. If ever there was an example of something within the rules not being in the spirit of the rules that was it.

I think you are confusing the incidents. There was an incident when the referee declared a very large rock as loose impediment and Tiger got the spectators to move it.

 

[Slab]

Thanks all

 

[atticusfinch]

You got it backwards jim. The ref agreed with woods it was a LI.

 

[atticusfinch]

They stopped that afterwards by saying the impediment had to be easily moveable. If ever there was an example of something within the rules not being in the spirit of the rules that was it.

It's amazing how golf myths begin. The easily removable element of the decision was not created because of the woods incident. It has been in the decision for years, at least 1989 my first copy.

 

[atticusfinch]

What about dec 23/2...If a stone is partially embedded and may be picked up with ease, it is a loose impediment. When there is doubt as to whether a stone is solidly embedded or not, it should not be removed.

 

[atticusfinch]

The rule does not say "light" it says loose. The tiger stone was heavy but it was not solidly embedded...it was sitting flat on the ground. The fans provided enough muscle to easily move the stone.

 

[rulefan]

The original decision goes back to 1956.

Query:
In a recent mixed foursome Stableford Competition, one of the competitors drovea ball which finished up touching a tree that had been felled about two yearsago. The tree trunk was about 10 ins. to 12 ins. in diameter and about 10 ft.long.
The competitortried but failed to move the log, dropped out, and the partner played on. Thecompetitor reported the matter to the Committee on completion of the round. Heclaimed that under Rule 31 no penalty would arise, as the log was an immovableobstruction.
The Committee,however felt otherwise, as under Definition 20 an obstruction is somethingartificial, and a tree trunk, although lying on the ground, is natural, and notartificial. It therefore came under Definition 17.
While theCommittee was still deliberating, information was received that anothercompetitor had, with the help of caddies, rolled the log away as it interferedwith his swing. This information was corroborated by the player concerned. TheCommittee therefore imposed a penalty of two strokes under Rule 29-2b.
The followingqueries arise:—
(a) Was the ruling of theCommittee correct?
(b) In moving an impediment orobstruction is a player limited to the assistance that can be given by hispartner and their caddies or, in the case of a match, by his or her caddie, orcan all and sundry help?
(c) Can a tree trunk lying onthe ground be regarded as an obstruction if it is obviously too heavy to bemoved?
Answer:
(a) A log, being a naturalobject, is a loose impediment under Definition 17.
(b) There is nothing in theRules of Golf which limits the assistance a player may obtain in moving animpediment or movable obstruction. The second competitor had therefore incurredno penalty and the decision of the Committee in this case was incorrect.
(c) It is not an obstruction.The player, being unable to move the log, had the alternative of playing inaccordance with Rule 29-2. The ruling of the Committee was correct so far asthe first competitor was concerned.